Connotations and conjunctions: threshold concepts, curriculum development, and the cohesion of

English studies

A case study of the development of discipline identity at the University of Brighton

Final report

By Prof. Gina Wisker and Stuart Cameron and Dr. Maria Antoniou

Centre for Learning and Teaching, University of Brighton

Revised version, August 2008

Connotations and conjunctions: threshold concepts, curriculum development, and the cohesion of English studies.

A case study of the development of discipline identity at the University of Brighton.

Final Report

By Prof. Gina Wisker and Stuart Cameron and Dr. Maria Antoniou

Centre for Learning and Teaching, University of Brighton

1. Introduction

We were grateful to have received the support of the English Subject Centre to undertake this research project at the University of Brighton. The project explored conceptualisations of English, and of English learning and teaching, held by staff and students at the University, within the context of plans to integrate the delivery of English across three Schools at the University. This particular transitional moment in the history of English at Brighton provides a rare opportunity to explore ways in which the subject is understood, delivered, and ‘owned’ by students and staff here. We see the project as contributing directly to the development of English at our institution, and indirectly to the knowledge and development of English across the sector.

We draw on a long history of reconceptualising and reviewing English in the sector, including discussions and debates facilitated by organisations such as the Council for College and University English, and the HEA English Subject Centre. We also utilise the newly developed theories of ‘threshold concepts’ – particular and essential concepts in each discipline which require students to make a ‘learning leap’, to develop new ways of seeing (e.g. Meyer and Land, 2006).

This report describes our experience of undertaking the project along with some of the project’s key findings. We hope this work will inspire and inform those planning similar developments and curricula changes, whether integrating the delivery of English across various departments and sites, building new English degrees from scratch, reshaping the English curriculum, or investigating the discipline identity of English within their own institution.

Background and context

‘English’ has historically been both problematised and differently developed across the sector following reconceptualisation in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and latterly with the benchmarking statements and the work of the English Subject Centre. It comprises a number of linked-but-separate strands, including English Language, English Studies, English Literature or Literature in English, and Creative Writing. Consequently, the learning and teaching of ‘English’ often cuts across many academic subject areas and departments, perhaps with little communication between them at an institutional and wider level (save the work of professional bodies such as the English Associationand the English Subject Centre).

As a subject, English is differently configured in different universities. For example, traditional English Literature courses can focus on historical periods (e.g. modernism, the nineteenth century), location or cultural context (e.g. Welsh writing since 1945, the migrant voice), theme and genre studies (e.g. the Gothic, epic poetry, crime fictions) or critical approaches and inflections ( e.g. gender and writing). More recently, these have been augmented by courses focusing on developing reading and writing skills, including courses on ways of reading and courses on creative and other forms of writing. Despite various crises such as’ the death of the novel’ in English Literature in the late 1970s, English has continued to flourish and renew itself. Recent redevelopments at the University of Brighton are a case in point of the reinvigoration and popularity of English Literature.

The flavour of English Literature at Brighton is strongly influenced by its historical development within the School of Education (Jacobs, 2006). English Literature teaching was originally established at Brighton within the BA with Qualified Teacher Status. Since then, School of Education staff have developed modules matching their areas of reputation and expertise, including those on narrative, drama, Shakespeare, poetry, literature and childhood, and the literature of the Holocaust. From this strong base, two joint honours undergraduate courses were created in 2002 and 2004, linking English Literature with English Language and with Sociology. A third joint degree – BA (Hons) English and Education, began in October 2007.

In a wider sense, ‘English’ at the University of Brighton is taught by at least four separate Schools (Languages, Education, Social Sciences, Historical and Critical Studies) and is delivered within joint honours courses such as BA (Hons) English and Education; BA (Hons) English Language and English Literature; BA (Hons) English Language and Linguistics; BA (Hons) English Language and Media; BA (Hons) English and Sociology; and, in the School of Historical and Critical Studies (SHACS), BA (Hons) Cultural and Historical Studies, BA (Hons) Humanities, MA Histories and Cultures and within the framework of the MA Cultural and Critical Theory[1]. There are at least 25 members of staff teaching English at the University of Brighton. Different aspects and versions of the discipline are taught within the learning context of, and in relation to the concerns of, the host School and the disciplines with which English is often coupled i.e. Education, Languages, Social Sciences, Historical and Critical Studies. Particular expertise/provision in literature exists in the areas of:

  • Children’s literature / literature in education
  • Contemporary fiction
  • Creative writing in society
  • Drama / drama in education
  • Early modern feminist writings
  • Feminist theory and women’s writing
  • Critical theory
  • Holocaust literature
  • Intercultural studies
  • Cultural politics
  • Literature of the 1640s and 1650s
  • Modernist and post-modernist literature
  • Narrative
  • Popular culture
  • Literatures in cultural and historical context
  • Post-colonial literature
  • Transition to HE literary study
  • Travel literature
  • Victorian literature and culture

A Steering Group was set up in October 2006 to guide and inform the strategic development of English at the University. The Group is progressing plans to integrate the delivery of English across three of the four Schools (Languages, Education, Social Sciences) where the subject is currently taught[2]. These plans are based on belief in the benefits of (a) a clear identity for English at Brighton; (b) more coherent course structures for English; and (c) a strong community of students and staff sharing and developing understandings about the nature of the subject, its epistemology, its threshold concepts, its worldviews and its practice. Those present at the first meeting of the English Steering Group concluded they “would like the university vision for English to be distinctive, with a coherent theme that will attract students, building on the university’s current strengths in the subject and the current market for English courses” (UoB English Steering Group, 2006). Whilst undergraduate courses are the main priority, the Group also stated an intention to investigate the potential for postgraduate degrees, opportunities for the professional development of staff, and ways of strengthening the English research culture at Brighton.

Progress on this ‘vision’ over the past year and a half has included: efforts to develop the English ‘culture’ via social events for English students and staff and the formation of a Literary Society; the rewriting of all three literature routes in the three courses to ensure each route is distinctive whilst retaining common elements; the agreement at senior management levels that the School of Languages will lead on the development of English at Brighton, with the School of Education continuing to strengthen its expertise in children’s literature and in English pedagogy (Laing, 2006); the renaming of the School of Languages as the School of Language, Literature and Communication; and the appointment of a new Professor of English Literature within the aforementioned School. The professor has been appointed and is leading developments in the subject including work towards an MA and the building of a more robust research culture. Additionally, commitment to the subject by senior management has remained strong and two new lectureships have also been created and appointed with the lecturers taking up post in Autumn 2008.

2.Findings from the literature

Note: This section refers mainly to English Literature

How is English conceived as a discipline? According to Eaglestone (2000a: 3) English has become “much more wide-ranging and exciting” since the 1980s, due to the introduction of literary theory, which has gone from being a “subject of debate” to a “central part of English as a university subject” (Hopkins, 2001: 1). The QAA’s current English benchmark statement suggests that today’s English involves not only the study of the “form, structure and rhetoric of texts,” but also “their social provenance, the cultures of which they are a part and in which they intervene, and their treatment of ideas and material shared with other subject areas” (QAA, 2007: 1). The discipline “embraces diverse modes of communication, oral, written and mixed, and their distinctive levels of phonology, grammar, lexis, semantics and pragmatics” (ibid).

The benchmark statement refrains from trying to set prescriptive limits on what constitutes English, arguing that “The breadth of English means that any attempts at prescription should be avoided” (QAA, 2007: 2). A recent survey of the English curriculum by the English Subject Centre (2003) found evidence of the diversification of the subject since previous research in 1997, with more language teaching and an increase in creative writing courses in particular. However, there was also evidence that a core curriculum (e.g. Shakespeare) was being maintained. A survey conducted by Cartmell and North in 1993, and reported in 2000, reports that heads of English departments believed English would become more diversified in the future, for example incorporating subjects such as media and cultural studies. The survey also found general opposition to a core curriculum amongst heads of English (Cartmell and North, 2000).

A number of researchers have raised potential problems with the increasing breadth and plurality of English. Cartmell and North (2000) argue that “the very fact that so many English departments are in the process of restructuring their curricula may itself suggest a neurosis about what constitutes ‘standards’.” Dentith and Ellis (2000: 4) consider the impact of diversification on the public understanding of English, and suggest that English educators “have often failed, as a profession, to develop a publicly defensible rationale or justification for what we do, now that we have so thoroughly debunked the old Arnoldian and Leavisian underpinnings that sustained the critical enterprise in Universities for much of the twentieth century”. Similarly Childs (2005: 33) talks about the “importance of English developing a better narrative about itself”, and, Eaglestone (2000b: 7) draws attention to the “inherent conflict and incommensurability between many of the different strands that make up English” and argues that “there is no ‘metalanguage’ of criticism, no one strand that explains and justifies all the other strands”.

Considering whether this “lack of a core” is important, however, Eaglestone (2000b: 7) argues that, although “[i]t’s certainly hard to write critical guides or create benchmarks or develop A-level curricula for a discipline that isn’t a discipline”, we should not worry about the way that “English has become so plural, so ‘undisciplinary’”. Eaglestone compares English to a thread made up of many overlapping fibres: “Being made of different fibres may make it hard – or impossible – to write critical guides for the whole subject, but it does make it a much stronger subject, institutionally speaking, not least because it makes it more open to change.” (p. 8). He predicts that there will be more and more strands in future – for instance creative writing – and warns that “[w]here a discipline is too constricted, it dies…” (p. 8).

Interdisciplinarity. English is often taught in combination with other subjects, and with a widely varied curriculum. An English Subject Centre Survey found that, as well as commonly offering joint honours courses, many universities offered opportunities for interdisciplinary work within single honours courses, most commonly with history or “media/film/television” (English Subject Centre, 2003: 53).

Exploring the factors underlying this pattern, Eaglestone (2000a: 126) suggests that the lack of a “fixed core to the subject,” and the fact that English “is very closely linked to people’s ideas about the world and is used and changes accordingly”, may help to explain why it is “perhaps the most diffuse and interwoven and has the fuzziest edges” of all the subjects we study. In addition English can “cast light on many other disciplines,” of which Eaglestone highlights history as perhaps the clearest example.

Threshold concepts. The theorising of threshold concepts by Meyer and Land (2003, 2006, 2008) offers a new opportunity to explore the epistemological and ontological notions and understandings which inform English as a subject and the practice of English in universities. Meyer and Land explain threshold concepts as critical points when students make ‘learning leaps’, when they move their work beyond descriptive fact-finding, to conceptual levels of understanding. These ‘aha’ moments, or ‘new ways of seeing’, represent ‘leaps of faith’ beyond their comfort zones when students acquire new ways of seeing the subject and their own work. Thus, they experience conceptual paradigm shifts regarding their studies and themselves. Meyer and Land identify core learning outcomes with examples from pure maths (complex numbers; limits); literary studies (signification); and economics (opportunity cost). Their evidence shows that a threshold concept will be:

  • ‘transformative’ – leading to significant, and probably irreversible, shifts in perception;
  • ‘integrative’ – exposing previously hidden interrelatedness of something;
  • ‘bounded’ – bordering into new conceptual areas;
  • ‘troublesome’ – conceptually difficult, counter-intuitive or alien.

Students passing through the ‘portal’ opened by a threshold concept experience change in their use of symbolic language, understanding of their discipline and conceptual appreciation of research issues. Threshold crossing also involves a state of liminality, whereby students ‘strip away’ the old and pass into the new. However, they may be stuck in this liminal state between older understandings and new appreciation of concepts (Land et al, 2005). Here, ‘mimicry’ may be employed as if they have elevated status within their discipline community (Meyer and Land, 2005). The mimicry displayed when passing through a conceptual threshold is distinguishable from ritualised ‘parrot fashion’ learning. Thus, liminality is when students are on the threshold of deeper conceptual understandings, but often find they are becoming frustrated, losing confidence or dropping out (Land et al, 2005; Trafford 2008).

Identifying common threshold concepts in English, we hope, will help to reveal the shape of this “fuzzy”, “undisciplinary” subject. A number of likely candidates for such concepts can be picked out from the literature. Eaglestone (2000a: 22) identifies the issue of interpretation as a “crucial” concept for English students to grasp: English “involves understanding how different ways of interpretation work … [M]any critics and educators say that this sort of questioning and reading from other perspectives is central to doing English.” Hopkins (2001: 2) suggests that students coming to study English at university may not be very well prepared for this type of work: although they may be “very skilled at reading texts”, “they are not necessarily equipped to read the variety and rapid sequence of texts with which degree courses present them”; and “theory is something which is completely new at university”. Similarly, respondents to the English Subject Centre (2003) survey were highly satisfied with the knowledge students acquired under the heading ‘subject content and range,’ but relatively dissatisfied with ‘theoretical approaches to literature’ and ‘close reading’ (although levels of satisfaction were high across the board).

Representation is another essential threshold concept in arts and humanities subjects. In English Literature, students must grasp that elements in a text represent an argument, ideology, world view and that they function symbolically, metaphorically, in excess of their mimetic qualities. Another such threshold concept recognises the importance of contextual (cultural, historical, etc) inflections and interpretations while another could be said to focus on the structurally related choices of language to produce an aesthetic construct which enables aesthetic pleasure to effect through its relationship between items (words, symbols, images, metre, rhyme, tense and so on) and where appropriate the conveying of emotion, feelings, meaning, message. All of these kinds of statements have been highly contested over the years in different schools of criticism and different reading practices. But they are nonetheless now part of the QAA benchmark statements and are variously interpreted through and incorporated in the construction of the English curriculum in the sector and its pre entry courses – A’ levels, Access, Baccalaureate and so on.

Recent research into the identifying, achieving and articulating of threshold concepts in doctoral studies in literature and art, in a study conducted by Wisker and Robinson[3] suggest students and staff are aware of threshold concepts of representation or signification, context whether historical or cultural , and the engagement of textual formal elements as vehicle for expression.

A debate about the focus of English seems to be perpetual and it would be useful to think what students might be expected to know, to do and to believe in their studies i.e. to map the varieties of English onto the three established (although contested) domains of learning: cognitive, affective and psychomotor.

3. The research project

Specific aims of the project were to:

  • Explore understandings of staff and students at the University of Brighton of what constitutes English as a discipline, its epistemology and learning and teaching practices;
  • Encourage cohesion and coherence between different iterations and conceptualisations of English at Brighton;
  • Develop and share understandings and strategies of threshold concepts in the discipline, between students and staff at Brighton;
  • Document the development of the emerging coherent course presentation and discipline identity of English at Brighton, exploring how such a development problematises and addresses constructions of the discipline, its worldview and pedagogy, putting into action resultant learning, teaching and assessment practices;
  • Map the institutional and disciplinary traditions and circumstances which have led to the current state of English at Brighton and whether they constitute opportunities for or barriers to change;
  • Provide insights and learning for English staff at other institutions, regarding integrating the delivery of English across various departments and sites, building new English degrees from scratch, reshaping the English curriculum, or investigating the discipline identity of English within their own institution.

We started the project in January 2007, undertaking a literature review before moving onto empirical research. We had initially hoped to use a multi-method approach: